[MUD-Dev] **sigh** OOP wars and defining RDBMS

Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no> Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>
Tue Sep 2 12:27:55 New Zealand Standard Time 1997

>>win.  You may of course take another approach and throw distribution at
>>the problem and write off the hardware costs by an assumed gain in
>>development time (although efficient largescale distribution isn't all
>>that easy?).
>We've solved it.  Efficiency is nto the issue for us, macheins are cheap.
>Scalability was the issue and our entire system architecture is a zero
>bottleneck almsot infinitly scalabale system.

Time will show then.  I'm still not going to do convolutions in an
interpreter...  Actually I would agree for any reasonable compiled
language, where you can control caching.  I'm not talking assembler
efficiency.  The problem with this thread is that it started with a
smallscale startup project using persistence libraries and gradually
got into fullfledged commercial systems.  I'm not saying that you
cannot use hybrid systems for instance...  In a startup you don't
want to do that, so that was the basic assumption, for a commercial
system things are different.


More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list